Cycling in Sydney Australia
So how many of us think it's time? That it makes sense? That we can make a difference? That we would at least have fun trying?
How would we do it? What do we call it? Just cycling? Who's ready to be involved?
Just putting it out there to test the extent of genuine interest given comments elsewhere. Should there be "critical mass" we will launch soon.
Vote for taking part by marking "+1" in a response here. Those wishing to actively participate please make yourself known here or by private message.
Update 1: Meetings are planned to create a committee tasked with evaluating the creation of a party. Updates will be posted in this discussion.
Update 2; Oct 5: Two meetings held so far. To register a party for the next NSW elections we will need 750 signatures from currently registered voters or "electors" by year's end... probably closer to 1,000 to make sure we cover off any challenges and have the foundation of a broad support network. An application fee of $2k is also required which we could raise through crowd funding.
Identifying committed committee members and naming the party are now the focus. A parallel launch in Victoria is also under consideration given the close timing of elections. The next committee meeting will take place this Wednesday.
Update 3; Oct 7: We will begin the effort to register a party in both Victoria and NSW beginning this week. In Victoria things kick off at the Ausbike Bicycle Show this coming weekend and in NSW the following week at the Bike and Lifestyle Show. We are looking for volunteers for the booths and to help sign up party members at both locations. Please email your interest to email@example.com
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Can't see the harm, and it just might work. My initial thought is that something broader than cycling (ala Go!) would be better for appealing to the vast bulk of the population.
I'd happily game the system, get a bunch of senate votes and go from being unemployed to a salary of $200,000!
Single issue political parties concern me.
Maybe something broader concerning safety, environment, amenity and human rights. Of course we have a party which ought to work for those things.
In fact all parties elected to govern for us should!
All of the foregoing should be assured, they are core govt functions.
So maybe another approach is needed to quality assure gov. IDK.
Though Martin (and indeed others) do have a point. We don't want to be a single issue party, and we should stand for more than just cycling. Active and Public Transport Party?
That one sounds great.
I agree Martin that they all should, but the evidence is clear that they don't and as the major parties now increasingly vie for the same policy real estate it leaves room for the fringes to be covered by others who in turn exercise disproportionate influence. Presto Shooters and Fishers, Car Enthusiasts, etc. become pivotal to governing. This is the underbelly of democracy where single issue parties can swing votes and policy.
So do we try to stop it (who will listen?) or accept and play by the new reality? It's a good question.
True today, however I expect and hope some reforms to stop joke parties making it to the senate.
One could argue that the Greens and Labor started as single issue parties (environment and industrial relations) but evolved into bigger, more mature entities.
Single issue parties concern me as well, but only the ones that can't see past their issue. I'm sure we can do better than a lot of parties out there.
Then maybe it'd be easier to get one of the current single-issue parties to adopt a cycling agenda, instead of starting another single-issue party from scratch.
In other news, Wayne Dropulich for the Australian Sports Party looks like he'll be elected to the senate in WA. His party has no non-sport-related policies, but "is focused on helping Australians live a healthy well balanced lifestyle"... Sounds like an opening to me.
If you have too many issues then they can conflict with each other and the main policy can be lost in the mire.
Also it is interesting that cycling can be supported by both sides of the political divide and that sometime it takes a liberal govt to get bipartisan support. eg. Boris in London, NSW Libs (maybe)
Anyway preferences means you can vote for more than one policy.
You make a great point Paul. And while the Greens have often been the champion on cycling issues this very alignment sometimes works against cycling both in a mainstream political and public context. I was told as much by one Green parliamentarian who while ready to embrace an initiative advised that it would make it less saleable to the majority party if they jumped in first. That can be the problem of having others do your bidding.